Why do you reject the pope?

Knightwolflord said:

If this doesn't tell you the biggest reason why East and West still stand at odds (not to mention why the EO laity of the 15th century...much like the coming Protestantism...spurred near unanimous call of their bishops at Florence).

What would St. Paul say if he saw believers in Christ justifying schism by things like this?

Click to expand...

Florence was a matter of politics through and through. The bishops in question were deceived much like the Eastern Catholic Churches into believing that if they fell under Rome, than they would be protected by outside invasion by people like the Muslims. They were not. They were cast aside and forgotten. The people whose bishops were at Florence went into an uproar and corrected their bishops saying "hey man, what are you thinking? Your letting worldly politics get in the way of correctly guiding the rest of us riff-raff" and so the bishops realized "oh crap, we really did mess us. Rome really isn't going to help us after all or if they do than they'll do to us what they did to Constantinople in 1204".

That is the matter of Florence in a nutshell. The bishops allowed politics to get in the way of their decision making and the masses corrected them for it. This is why Florence never held up. The people who are the Church said "This is not Orthodoxy. This is a false union. This is not the faith of our Fathers and forefathers. This is not the faith of Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian or Athanasius. This is not the faith for whom thousands of people were martyred for. And we will not be under the so-called supremacy of Rome".


I can not recall if Florence is considered a robber-council or anything similar. If it is not, than it should be.

Lukaris said:

But was not Constantinople formerly known also as Rome so where does this allegedly inherent exclusivity exist? Why were forged documents (like the alleged Donation of Constantine (9th c), incorrect doctrine (filioque), Frankish & Norman political intrigue to rejuvenate the discontinued institution of a Western Roman emperor etc. needed to give false justification & rationalisms to be attributed to ST Peter? The original intent gets lost in false justification.

Click to expand...

*cough*Charlemagne!*cough*

Knightwolflord said:

Indeed, what does constitute good Patristic support? After all I have seen numerous Eastern Orthodox who have used quotations from the Church Fathers to refute (which they do quite well) the Protestant rejection of the Eucharistic Presence of Christ. They can do this with such quotations because the quotations are numerous, come from several different Fathers from diverse traditions and rites, and they are clear and precise. This is, interestingly, NOT considered "cherry-picking." But when these same Fathers make such numerous, diverse, and clear affirmations of Papal primacy of jurisdiction based on Christ's promise to St. Peter............it is accussed of being "out-of-context" or "cherry-picking."

Click to expand...

So far I have not seen a single quote from a church father that is convincing. Most indeed were out of context, many from those who were within Rome's boundaries (meaning that the true church in that location would have to trace to Rome). Also, historical context has to be understood - Rome in the 3rd century was far from the same as in the 9th century. In the early centuries, Rome was far from most of the theological disputes raging in the east, so could be seen as a somewhat impartial, Orthodox, observer (while Rome may have been an authority, she still never demonstrated authority over the others). In later centuries, Rome was overrun by barbarian tribes and was seeking power it didn't have...

The most important piece is the puzzle though is this - Rome never actually, throughout the course of history, demonstrated the supposed "fact" that she had jurisdiction over the other patriarchates. If Rome did have this power, then why wasn't Patriarch Michael actually excommunicated from the church? Why did every other Patriarch side with that of Constantinople?

MoNiCa4316 said:

why are these mentioned twice? could it be that the "rock" is Peter AND his faith is that too? in different ways? why would Pope Leo and Augustine seem to teach both otherwise?

this is a sincere question.

Click to expand...

What is most interesting here is that even the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of Jesus as the Rock, the Apostles as the Rock, and St. Peter as the Rock.

Biblical passages usually have only one literal meaning, but can have several applications and interpretations. So whereas the passage of Matt. 16 is literally and primarily to be understood as a reference to a comission to St. Peter (which is the most numerously applied meaning of this passage by the Fathers of the Church), the passage can also be marshaled in defense of Jesus' Divinity or of the need for Divine Revelation. When the Father use this passage to refer to the Rock as Christ, or Peter's confession, or faith, they are not denying the literal meaning of the passage a meaning that they themselves testify to with great force. The Fathers are simply (like the Catechism of the Catholic Church) utilizing the richness of Holy Scripture for apologetic resources.

St. Peter's commission in Matt. 16 can be understood and used in various ways, HOWEVER these useful applications do NOT negate the primary and literal interpretation, which again is so powerfully attested to by the Fathers.

It is all too wrong (and not in keeping with the Fathers) to make these less literal interpretations of the passage to be proofs of an "either-or" dichotomy. The position of the Fathers, made quite clear by them, is a "both-and" position and is held by the Catholic Church even today.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built His Church."

Mixing the metaphors does damage to the text and the intent of the Biblical passages. In Matt. 16 we find St. Peter as the foundation, Christ the builder, and the believers the building stone. In 1 Cor. 3 however, Christ is the foundation (not said to be the builder), the apostles are the builders, and the building material is good or worthless work. The Matthean passage deal with the Church as a whole, whereas the second deals with the individual Christian. We must not mix the metaphors and create needless dichotomies as this "divides the word of truth."

Here: lets take a look at St. Hilary of Pontiers.

St. Hilary said that the faith of St. Peter is that which held the keys to the kingdom. However in a few chapters back in that same work (On the Trinity 6,37,121) St. Hilary says that St. Peter himself is the foundation stone of the Church. Are we then to assume that St. Hilary is confused!

No, we must ask ourselves whether St. Hilary sees these two affirmations as "mutually exclusive" or whether he sees no conflict between the two in accord with what I discussed above.

Even Pope John Paul the Great (of blessed memory) said in his "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" that:

"He [Peter] became the 'rock,' even if as a man, perhaps, he was nothing more than shifting sand. Christ Himself is the Rock and Christ builds His Church on Peter...on Peter, Paul, and the Apostles. The Church is Apostolic in virtue of Christ.....In the Church built on the Rock that is Christ, Peter, and the Apostles are witness of God crucified and risen in Christ."

Again let me quote the modern Catholic Catechism:

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

Click to expand...

Yet the Catechism also says:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Click to expand...

Like the Fathers, the Catholic Church continues to view this in the Patristic manner. The Fathers used Matthew 16 in many ways, as does the Catholic Church today.

None of it necessitates the creation of artificial dichotomies in order to prove a point that, ultimately, is contrary to the profession of the Fathers, who never seemed to talk about other ways of Matt. 16 without also speaking of the literal perspective held by the Catholic Church, East and West, even today.

Or look at it another way: In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul declared, "No other foundation can any one lay except that which has been laid, Jesus Christ." In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Jesus himself is called "the supernatural Rock." But neither of these passages means that Christ was speaking of himself as "the rock" in Matthew 16.

The same metaphor can be used in different places and with different meanings. For example, in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14, the apostles are referred to as the foundation of the Church. In Psalm 18:31 and 1 Samuel 2:2, "God alone" is our "rock." Yet in Isaiah 51:1–2, Abraham is called "rock."

God freely chooses to communicate his authority in varying degrees to members of the people of God in order to accomplish his governance and authority on the earth. God’s ministers participate in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry of Christ. Jesus Christ, the rock foundation of our faith, is certainly capable of making Peter the rock and the foundation of our faith in him.

I hope that helps to answer your question my sister. But since this stuff becomes so tedious and time consuming I must take off for the day and attend to my language studies.

May your evening and night be without sin in the sight of the Blessed Trinity. Amen.

Knightwolflord said:

Not really, it may sound good but ultimately it doesn't stand up well. Indeed I would say that the clear contradiction of the Fathers made by many EO here would have shown you that.

Click to expand...

If there is contradiction it's because we're all human. But the fathers themselves support the Orthodox faith, as does scripture, etc...

Knightwolflord said:

No they don't, my sister. They merely reaffirm the positions that Catholic apologists....from the Dominicans of the 11th century to modern apologists like Vladimir Soloviev, Cardinal Newman, Patriarch Gregorios of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and All the East, and James Likoudis (among many others) have so excellently dealt with.

Click to expand...

Truth is found in the church and her Saints, not modern apologists or 'theologians' (most of which don't deserve that title).

Knightwolflord said:

Don't fall for that. Can history be twisted? Yes, but not to support anything ESPECIALLY in the case of Patristic ideas on the Pope....as you yourself have shown so clearly here.

Click to expand...

Actually I'd say history is a very good witness (though people's interpretation of history can be suspect). This is the problem - the Pope's so called supremacy over the rest of the Patriarchs is not supported by the historical record. If it was, then Patriarch Michael of Constantinople would have actually been excommunicated, and we'd all be under the Roman Papacy. But it's not, and thus Rome separated herself from the other 4 Patriarchates.

Knightwolflord said:

And many want to make the schism overly complicated in order to hide behind it as a justification for schism. Again and Again, God's Truth can be clearly found (if it is sought) and it has been found by many, many Protestants and Eastern Orthodox....often by great struggle.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Ukrainian uniates apostasized for political favours, selling out their faith instead of persevering... Thankfully many have come home (the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches of Canada and America were formed by ex-uniates and are now under the Ecumenical Patriarch). You forget to mention that all protestant sects originated in the Catholic church.

Knightwolflord said:

The Fathers and the Scriptures and the testimony of history is never as complicated as schismatic groups tend to claim. Was the Great Schism complicated? Yes, in many ways........BUT was too complicated that we can simply stay in the East and wait until all the "bugs" are worked out OR should we pray, fast, and dilligently look to the Fathers and to the silent witness of history?

Click to expand...

Actually, the Great Schism was quite simple. Rome excommunicates Constantinople, and vice-versa. What's the result - Rome is outside of the church, all the other Patriarchs side with Constantinople... Who has changed the faith? Just look for dogmas that were defined after the schism, that didn't exist in the early church...

Knightwolflord said:

The Fathers stand on their testimony, and it is open for all to see, especially nowadays.

And in the end, you know as well as I do (or at least I pray that you can see...you have only begun to demostrate that evidence here...only begun to do so) that where the Holy Fathers of Christ's Church stand on this.

Click to expand...

Again, nothing you have shown proves what you claim. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Knightwolflord said:

Or look at it another way: In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul declared, "No other foundation can any one lay except that which has been laid, Jesus Christ." In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Jesus himself is called "the supernatural Rock." But neither of these passages means that Christ was speaking of himself as "the rock" in Matthew 16.

Click to expand...

As our Greek-speaking brother already showed in this thread, the 'rock' upon which the church is built in Matthew 16 is the confession that 'You are the Christ, the son of the living God'. Indeed this is also the prevailing view of the fathers...

Knightwolflord said:

The same metaphor can be used in different places and with different meanings. For example, in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14, the apostles are referred to as the foundation of the Church. In Psalm 18:31 and 1 Samuel 2:2, "God alone" is our "rock." Yet in Isaiah 51:1–2, Abraham is called "rock."

Click to expand...

And in 2 Peter 2, all believers are called living stones. All this works against the idea that Peter is the only rock upon which the church is built.

prodromos said:

One of the things that struck me is how the early Fathers referred to the Church in Rome being established by Peter AND Paul, however it later appears that this did not fit well with establishing Rome's primacy based on Christ's words to Peter in Matt. 16:18 so Paul was 'quietly' dropped from the equation.
Actually, Paul was not quietly dropped, he was forcibly thrown out as was discovered by an unfortunate Franciscan monk in Spain. His discovery set in motion a painful spiritual journey which forced him to leave the Catholic Church, eventually leading him to Holy Orthodoxy.

My conversion to Orthodoxy began one day while I was reordering the Library catalogues of the monastery I belong to. This monastery belonged to the Franciscan order, founded in my country of Spain. While I was classifying different old articles concerning the Holy Inquisition, I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.
It was about a horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic. In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John 22nd and Clemens 6th had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life, was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastic monarchal authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius 10th, in 1907 and Benedict 15th, in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.
​

Read the rest of his story here, Why I abandoned Papism by Hierodeacon Paul Ballaster-Convolier
The previous Franciscan monk who had turned to Orthodoxy was made title bearing bishop Nanzizian of the Holy Hierobishopric of North and South America with its seat in Mexico. There he was met with a martyric death, the confessor of the Orthodox faith, murdered by a 70 year old Mexican in 1984.

John

Click to expand...

That is quite interesting. Indeed, the one thing that has always struck me about the RCC's defense of Papal supremacy, is that it has changed throughout the years, many times.

1 Cor 1:13 said:

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Click to expand...

1 Cor 3:21 said:

Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours:
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come--all are yours.
And you [are] Christ's, and Christ [is] God's.

Click to expand...

what i've always wanted to know, and i don't think it's been answered here yet, is why is the pope necessary?

exquirer said:

Rome was and is first among equals. We are all equal - in Christ there is neither slave or free, male or female - we are all equal in Jesus Christ - temples of the living God - the body of Christ. And some of us have more responsibility than others and are called to higher service.

And like Peter, the Popes make mistakes - and weeps and repents, falls down, gets up, falls down, get up..... just like the rest of us.

Its a pattern we are all in, so why don't we grow up, arise at the passing of the gray head and give honor to whom it is due.

The bread of Christianity is His body, and the blood is forgiveness - and if we don't forgive, we will never be one even as Jesus Christ and the Father are one.....

As for Scripture, read Isaiah 22 with the Fathers.

Click to expand...

Correction: Rome is NO LONGER the first among equals. That title was given to the Ecumenical Patriarch when Rome fell into schism and heresy in 1054 AD.

MoNiCa4316 said:

that's just one opinion. the other one is that Constantinople was trying to make itself equal to Rome though it was not.. they even said, the "New Rome" should be second to the "Old Rome":

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome"

Click to expand...

Rome hasn't held that title since 1054 AD. (when they chose heresy)

Knightwolflord said:

If this doesn't tell you the biggest reason why East and West still stand at odds (not to mention why the EO laity of the 15th century...much like the coming Protestantism...spurred near unanimous call of their bishops at Florence).

What would St. Paul say if he saw believers in Christ justifying schism by things like this?

Click to expand...

So...what exactly do you think JUSTIFIES a schism? Should we wait until Rome drops a Nuclear bomb?!!!!!

Unbelieveable.

Max, fire with fire only brings about a bigger fire and possibly an explosion.

Julina said:

what i've always wanted to know, and i don't think it's been answered here yet, is why is the pope necessary?

Click to expand...

Good question. Why does Rome see the Pope as being necessary for salvation.

but also with great Christians like Madame Swetchine, Vladimir Soloviev, Elizabeth Wolkonsky, Michael-Dimitrevitch Gerbstsoff, Ivan Gagarin S.J., Barnabite Gregory Schouvaloff, Blessed Exarch Leonid Fedorov, Prince Vladimir Ghika, Bishops Isaias Papadopoulos, Helene Iswolsky, Helle Elpiniki Georgiades, and other sons of the Eastern churches whose study of the Church's history led them to embrace the fullness of the Catholic faith which Christ the Lord had established upon the solidity of the Rock of Peter.

Click to expand...

So anyone else is not Christian?

Julina said:

what i've always wanted to know, and i don't think it's been answered here yet, is why is the pope necessary?

Click to expand...

It is not the office of the Pope we are contending with but the overextension of a bishop's authority. Indeed, the apostolic succession from St. Peter is legitimate but not absolute. The office is understood by Pope St. Clement of Rome (ca. 100 AD) as instituted in the prophecy of Isaiah (60:17) & translated as such in the Greek Septuagint (and correctly so in the Orthodox Study Bible). (Did no see originally that quote had been replied to previously)

As much as I wanted and burned to see Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology win out......I couldn't reconcile it with the Fathers.

Click to expand...

so.. .how do you reconcile the councils with the fathers? The Fathers are not to be cherry picked... period. no matter what you say we do not base dogma on their sayings. We depend on the councils...

Michael the Iconographer said:

Max, fire with fire only brings about a bigger fire and possibly an explosion.

Click to expand...

You are right. Besides, the scriptures do say something about "Casting pearls, etc"......

I suppose we Orthodox should just prostrate ourselves and do whatever the Pope says <SARCASM> (NOT!)

Maximillian of Antioch said:

So...what exactly do you think JUSTIFIES a schism? Should we wait until Rome drops a Nuclear bomb?!!!!!

Unbelieveable.

Click to expand...

Furthermore fof anyone who knows.. the Pope send the "bull of excomunication" ...to Constantinople excommunicating himself from any Churches of the East... .... Not to mention the crusades... So I only see in this thread the RC going all over the place trying to prove their point.

Every point that was put forth has been defeated

not to mention why the EO laity of the 15th century...much like the coming Protestantism...spurred near unanimous call of their bishops at Florence).

Click to expand...

That is the ultimate distortion of what Orthodoxy stands for... The only rebellion again was that of Rome's going off on their own...disregarding the Universal Church and right ecclesiology that was practiced since 33 AD.